RIGHTS REVIVAL

When, in the course of a Nation, there arises a need for that Nation’s Government to choose between its own People and the Corporations that greatly profit from that Nation’s largesse, the path that Government takes speaks volumes of its regard for the Men and Women who fought long and hard to build a democratic Society, that does not question the equality of all Men and all Women. The United States of America is at that very crossroads. Both the People, and the Government charged to represent them, have some basic societal and political decisions to make in the coming month and a half.

It seems quite easy for the People to relax into a Corporate run life-style that removes much of the day to day decision making that this Nation’s original individualists prided themselves on. Reaching conclusions and acting on decisions are two very distinct and different concepts. The People of this Country can reach all the conclusions they want to, and that will still simply leave the “huddled masses” groveling at the feet of Corporate America. The inference here is that this act alone will guarantee the obliteration of anything resembling a Middle Class.

To be involved in the furthering of our National democracy, The People are the catalysts of change and progression. It is the People who must set the National agenda, and go to any, and all, lengths to insure that agenda is adhered to day after day, year after year. One of the most basic tenets of a democracy is the expectation that the People will be willing to get involved to the point of electing their peers to represent them in ways appropriate to their wishes. The inference here is that the very best decisions will be made, and acted upon, for the greater wellbeing of the Nation’s People.

There are three distinct choices the American People can make this November. By convincing yourself that your vote does not matter, and your Government will do as they please, anyway, you can stay home on our National Election Day and let the World pass you by.

Alternatively, you may participate in your right to engage your vote, and opt for the status quo, thus allowing the Nations’ Corporations a free hand to run this Country as they see fit. This option has absolutely nothing to do with your wishes and desires about the future of your Country.

You may, on the other hand, choose to engage your vote on your terms. Being of sound mind and fairly good judgment, the People of the United States of America have the capability to shape a National moral, societal, economic, and political course that will guarantee fairness and justice to ALL our Citizens.

There are two ways to arm yourself with the confidence to make the choice that is right for you. Number one is The Constitution of The United States of America; number two is The Bill of Rights. One aspect of reading these two Documents is that you can do it by your self, with no outside interference to sway your judgment. Both Documents are easy to read; easy to understand, and are the basis for our Country’s past, present, and future.

Before you make a decision to vote, or not, or to vote one way, or the other, please take the time to re-acquaint yourself with our Nation’s founding Articles and the Documentation that formed the beginning of the World’s Greatest Democracy. The grand design for the United States of America is one of longevity and prosperity, with fairness and justice to all its Citizens, and to the rest of the World’s Citizens.

    I thank you for getting involved in your Country’s future.

Poor v. Rich

Published on Tuesday, August 14, 2012 by OtherWords

The 64-Gazillion-Dollar Question

A top authority on poverty has changed his mind about the urgency of fighting inequality.

by Sam Pizzigati

Peter Edelman has battled poverty for nearly half a century — first as a top aide to Senator Robert Kennedy, later as a state and federal official, and currently as a key figure at a widely respected law and public policy center in Washington.(Neil Moralee/Flickr)
Over his years in and out of government, Edelman has probably earned as much respect as anyone in our nation's public policy community. Back in 1996, he did something few high-ranking federal officials ever do. He resigned in protest when President Bill Clinton signed a law that Edelman could not support in good conscience.
Edelman, then an assistant secretary at the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, publicly warned that the "welfare reform" that Clinton signed into law would be devastating for the nation's most vulnerable children. He turned out to be right. The number of children living in deep poverty — kids in families making under half the official poverty threshold — rose 70 percent from 1995 to 2005, and 30 percent more by 2010.
America's elected leaders didn't listen to Edelman in 1996. Now they have another chance. Edelman, currently a co-director at the Georgetown University Law Center, has just released a new book — So Rich, So Poor — that aims "to look anew at why it is so hard to end American poverty."
You get the feeling from this candid new book that Edelman would be astonished if our elected leaders actually paid attention to his poverty-fighting prescriptions. So Rich, So Poor seems to address a different audience: the millions of decent Americans, from across the political spectrum, who share his outrage about our continuing deep poverty.
These Americans have a special reason for paying close attention to Edelman's new book. The author, one of the nation's most committed experts on poverty, has changed his mind — not about poverty and the poor, but about wealth and the rich.
"I used to believe," Edelman writes in his new book, "that the debate over wealth distribution should be conducted separately from the poverty debate, in order to minimize the attacks on antipoverty advocates for engaging in 'class warfare.' But now we literally cannot afford to separate the two issues."
Why? The "economic and political power of those at the top," Edelman explains, is "making it virtually impossible to find the resources to do more at the bottom."
Figuring out how we can achieve a more equal distribution of income and wealth has become, Edelman advises, "the 64-gazillion-dollar question."
"The only way we will improve the lot of the poor, stabilize the middle class, and protect our democracy," he notes, "is by requiring the rich to pay more of the cost of governing the country that enables their huge accretion of wealth."
What about those antipoverty activists and analysts who still yearn to keep poverty — the absence of wealth — separate from the concentration of wealth? Many of these folks, Edelman notes, argue that the rich as a group have no reason to oppose efforts to help end poverty.
Edelman's response? "More than anything else," he observes, the wealthy "want low taxes," and they know the taxes on their sky-high incomes will rise if government ever starts spending money to really help people in need.
"The wealth and income of the top 1 percent grows at the expense of everyone else," Edelman sums up in So Rich, So Poor. "Money breeds power, and power breeds more money. It is a truly vicious cycle."
Only average Americans have the wherewithal to end this cycle. Middle- and low-income Americans need to join in common cause. If they don't, Edelman bluntly adds, "we are cooked."

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License

Sam Pizzigati edits Too Much, the Institute for Policy Study's online weekly newsletter on excess and inequality.

Modern Martha and Harold

HOUSTON, WE HAVE A PROBLEM!

                                              

   Holy crap, Martha, the damn well’s going dry! But, Martha knew that History repeats itself, especially when it comes to the weather. Seems like Martha and Harold are back in the old dust bowl, again. Some of us still remember the author John Steinbeck who wrote The Grapes of Wrath, which won the Pulitzer Prize, and Of Mice and Men, about folks like Martha and Harold. (That was back in the old days when you had to read stuff to find out what was going on in the World.)

   Well, back then Martha and Harold bundled up the kids and some of their belongings and headed for California, and a better life. Now, we seem to have a similar weather pattern in our abundant Midwest and Southwest. This modern day drought has some eerie similarities to the Dust Bowl of the 1930’s. It stretches from the high plains of Central Canada all the way South to Gulf of Mexico.

   Does anyone remember what was going on here in the 1930’s. Ah, yes, we were trying to resurrect ourselves from “The Great Depression”.  Sound a little familiar? Now, Modern Martha and Harold can’t just bundle up the kids and some of their belongings and headed for California. California is totally bankrupt, way too overcrowded, and Modern Martha and Harold don’t have the money to move, because Harold has been unemployed for a year and a half. MM & H are also close to defaulting on their mortgage, maxed out on their credit cards, one car already repossessed, and the second one in arrears.

   Tell me; what are Modern Martha and Harold supposed to do? In our style of democracy, this is where the Federal Government comes riding in on the white horse, just in time to save the day. Here’s where we run into a major snafu. The Federal Government doesn’t own a white horse anymore. The Chinese bought the last one we had, and, believe me, they aren’t riding in to save our day anytime soon. I guess there is a small chance that we can keep our feet out of the fire. Maybe, just maybe, if we stop fighting  these wars that are destined to failure, we can avoid running over the $3.4 trillion outlay that I suggested three years ago. Maybe then, we will have some money left over to help Modern Martha and Harold through this rough period. I really thought that helping them at their hour of need was “The American Way”. I hope I can still feel truth in that when I wake up tomorrow morning.

Just a little history from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dust_Bowl                    

Geographic characteristics

{A dust storm approaches Stratford, Texas, in 1935.}

The Dust Bowl area lies principally west of the 100th meridian on the High Plains, characterized by plains which vary from rolling in the north to flat in the Llano Estacado. Elevation ranges from 2,500 feet (760 m) in the east to 6,000 feet (1,800 m) at the base of the Rocky Mountains. The area is semiarid, receiving less than 20 inches (510 mm) of rain annually; this rainfall supports the shortgrass prairie biome originally present in the area. The region is also prone to extended drought, alternating with unusual wetness of equivalent duration. During wet years, the rich soil provides bountiful agricultural output, but crops fail during dry years. The region is also subject to high winds.

“Leggo my Eggo”

Who’s going to steal my money, now? Let me count the ways:

1.       Town Council

2.       Town Supervisor

3.       County Legislator

4.       County Supervisor

5.       State Representative

6.       State Senator

7.       U.S. Representative

8.       U.S. Senator

Now, shut up, neither the Governor nor the President of the United States has the power to put his hand in my wallet; all the others do.

   On the local level, my town is going to be in need of money for the School District. The Feds and the State are constantly cutting back. The Town sewage treatment plant is out of date, and needs a major overhaul and expansion. This is obvious from the wonderful odors wafting through the Town. The suspension on my car is almost in need of surgery. The Town roads are constantly at the mercy of spring water, and their paths of run off. The roads are also at the mercy of the Sewage  Treatment Plant, the County Water District, the area Electric and Gas Utility, and a few of the major Communications Companies. The Town Parks are just barely hanging in there. There are too few workers, and not enough hours in the day. Town Services that are used by the Elderly, the Children, the Veterans, and the Poor cannot sustain their current levels of performance. The Town offers many more Services and Educational Programs that most likely cannot sustain at their current levels. There is also the question of Property Values. As Town sponsored programs and necessities get the axe, the Town becomes a little less attractive place to live; thus, bringing down Property Values. In a good Economy, all of this might signal a certain amount of “gentrification”. The trouble is that the “gents” don’t have the wherewithal to make that happen, anymore.   

In addition to the Town’ woes, the County shoulders many tax funded projects and programs on an even larger basis. The County also is more “tied into” The State when it comes to Welfare, Food Stamps, Unemployment Benefits, the good old DMV, Land Preservation, etc. There are some obvious areas where financial cuts simply can’t be made, but. as the Town, The County will not be able to sustain the abundance of peripheral programs and projects.

When it comes to the State and the Federal Government, just take a few minutes and think about your daily, weekly, monthly, and yearly necessities and activities. You may find that things in your life you take for granted get funded through your tax payments. Look at your pay stub, if you’re lucky enough to have one, and take inventory of what exactly all those deductions end up funding. The deductions are for things you use now, or will be eligible for in the future. The way this Country operates is directly funded through your beneficence. That’s right. Its your money that makes this Country the most respected in the World. You have a stake in keeping it that way. You also have the right to vote in elections that determine who gets to spend your money. Choose wisely. “A fool and his money are quickly separated.”

This week’s fireside chat with your Uncle Hutch

As I will be stuffing someone’s turkey, cooking someone’s goose, or generally creating a nuisance of myself on Wednesday, I will offer my “fireside chat with your Uncle Hutch” a little early this week………..

 This week’s  subject:   General Strikes

NATIONAL STRIKES:   TIME DURATION, APPROXIMATE DATES, PRODUCTS AND/OR MARKETS, SPECIFIC ITEMS BOYCOTTS, ITEMS BY REGION, STRIKES IN COINCIDENCE WITH POLITICAL ACTIVITY

Why even entertain the thought of a general strike? Because, they tend to work. Most general strikes bring about political changes, and as is their intended mission. To add targeted, or rolling, general strikes to the ongoing “OWS” (Occupy Wall Street) movement would bring beneficial results to both. The general strike can broaden the reach and consequences intended by “Occupy Wall Street”, and conversely, “Occupy Wall Street” allows for a ready platform from which any general strike may be launched.  As intended for use in this context, a general strike is inherently non-violent. The “Authorities” ( i.e. Law Enforcement ) have no dog in this fight, and thus need not react either positively, or negatively. By taking Law Enforcement out of the loop, the 1%, Owners of the Country, have no public means of combating the effects of the general strike.

The common thread that would bind “General Striking” with “Occupy Wall Street” is that this Nation needs to redraw the lines between politics and the big money that makes our economy work. With that line of demarcation drawn boldly and clearly, once again, we will see to it that our blend of democracy and a strong economy is reinstated as our “way of life”

MISSION STATEMENT:

THESE STRIKES ARE TO ACT AGAINST THE BLATANT MISUSE OF OUR TAX DOLLARS TO FUND FOREIGN, IMPORTED PRODUCTS AND SERVICES. THE ITEMS AND AREAS TARGETED WILL BE OF THE NATURE OF ONCE HAVING BEEN PRODUCED AND/OR OFFERED BY UNITED STATES MANUFACTURERS AND SERVICE PROVIDERS INSIDE THE BORDERS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.; BUILT BY AMERICANS, FOR AMERICANS. IT WILL BE NECESSARY FOR THE DURATION OF SAID STRIKES TO BE OF SUFFICIENT LENGTH AS TO Influence THE NET PROFITS OF THE TARGETS.

General strikes have been a tried and true course of action in other Nations, and has led to both minor and major reforms.

examples:

Great Britain: Biggest strike for 100 years – union chief - Pensions revolt won't be like the miners – because we'll win, says Unison general secretary Dave Prentis The leader of the largest public sector union promises to mount the most sustained campaign of industrial action the country has seen since the general strike of 1926, vowing not to back down until the government has dropped its controversial pension changes.

          {Polly Curtis, Whitehall correspondent

          The Guardian, Friday 17 June 2011

          http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/jun/18/

          biggest-strike-100-years-union}

Japan: At any given moment, there may be general strikes in numerous nations around the world. Government leaders may seek to ban general strikes, and in some cases, they are successful. In February, 1947, General Douglas MacArthur, as Supreme Commander of the Allied Powers in Japan, banned a planned general strike of 2,400,000 government workers, stating that "so deadly a social weapon" as the general strike should not be used in the impoverished and emaciated condition of Japan so soon after World War II. Japan's labor leaders complied with his ban.

           {http://www.facebook.com/pages/General-strike/110663942295810}

India:  by Ravi Velloor, The Straits Times - Singapore, Tuesday 6 July 2010

Large parts of India shut down Monday during an opposition-called general strike to protest against inflation and a rolling back of subsidies on oil and cooking gas. With the leftist groups holding their own protests independently of the mainstream opposition, commuters and office workers across the country had a hard day as air; rail and road transport was disrupted across several states. Opposition-ruled states such as Orissa, Bihar and West Bengal reported massive work stoppages as the administration made little effort to force people to work. Television footage from the technology hub of Bangalore, which is in opposition-ruled Karnataka state, also showed unusually thin traffic at midday, with many shops and offices shuttered.

             {http://www.mysinchew.com/node/41293}

And, yes, even here!

U.S. In 1927 the IWW called for a three-day nationwide walkout — in essence, a demonstration general strike — to protest the execution of anarchists Ferdinando Nicola Sacco and Bartolomeo Vanzetti.  The most notable response to the call was in the Walsenburg coal district of Colorado, where 1,132 miners stayed off the job, and only 35 went to work a participation rate which led directly to the Colorado coal strike of 1927.

On March 18, 2011, the Industrial Workers of the World website (www.iww.org) supported an endorsement of a general strike as a follow-up to protests against Governor Scott Walker's proposed labor legislation in Wisconsin, following a motion passed by the South Central Federation of Labor (SCFL) of Wisconsin endorsing a statewide general strike as a response to those legislative proposals.

                {http://www.mysinchew.com/node/41293}

The alternative to product and service boycotts would this form of “general” strike, which could follow a regional, or National, blueprint. Unlike specific item boycotting, a general strike targets every aspect of daily living. This, by its very nature, takes less organization, but a lot more motivation. The increased motivation is needed, because the general strike will, to some extent, hit everyone’s pocket book. It will also require a higher level of motivation for the populace to take to the streets in lawful assembly and make the message heard.

The highest priority should be granted against those companies that are simply taking the same items made here, duplicating them off shore, and selling back here at lower prices. One obvious example is the consumer entertainment market. If the potential consumer can defer a current purchase, this would be one instance of a longer-term type of boycott. If the potential consumer had to make a purchase now, the choice of “Buy American”, instead of buying that import, would have the same desired effect; as long as you do the research as to what percentage of your “American” electronic gadget actually comes from America.

These actions may have greater impact by closely coinciding in time and space  with the political primary dates and physical locations of the political primary calendars in the upcoming General Election year.

          example: During the New Hampshire primary voting week,

          or month, products that were normally manufactured in and

          services that normally originated from New Hampshire, before

          being “off shored”, will be targeted as boycott Items of Interest.

          A day, or two, of general striking in specific locations may offer

          a message harder to ignore.

In keeping with our love of choices, a participant can simply choose to not do something for a specific time period. “Made in America” does not apply in this instance. However, this, in conjunction with the “in your face” public display of an “OWS” type movement over a decent period of time will make a difference.

As dictated by weather conditions, a movement that would aim to start sometime in January, to coincide with political agenda, might need to kick off in the southern most States and work its way to the north, as the weather becomes more conducive to the act of public assembly and protest. This does not rule out the opportunity to act in the northern sections of the Country, but would most probably cut way down on the visibility of any action.

These actions may be better served they were to occur after the December Holidays, as to lessen any negative effect they would have on the little amount of manufacturing and retail business that still employs some of our bottom 99%.

Of course, the ultimate general strike would be if someone threw a Presidential Election and nobody came!


What if.......?



Welcomed to the theater of the absurd!

I don’t  really care who’s in charge here, but the issuance of million dollar (+) bonuses at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is the last straw. These two corporations have been sucking America dry for years. Fannie and Freddie’s management has systematically purchased so much debt ( ie. Toxic Assets) that they are now totally broke. And, now we bail them out with billions more of our money, only to see the CEO’s of these two entities earn $900,000.00 a year; and they EXPECT to receive bonuses. Come on….really?

Do you expect the average “Joe”  to be at all sympathetic towards anyone making that kind of money, even without a bonus? Are these ‘HMFC’s unable to live on their annual salaries? To receive even $1.00 in bonus money is tantamount to treason, especially considering the shape of our socio-economic reality.

The President of the United States makes $400,000.00 and lives just fine on that. The ambulance chasers we like to call Congressmen/women and Senators receive around $200,000.00 a year for their labors ( not including the money they get from ‘big business’), and they live just fine on that amount.

 Does anyone expect me to believe that $900,000.00 simply doesn’t cut the mustard anymore? (Don’t get me started on professional athletes.) Who is granting them these exorbitant amounts? The main stream media certainly isn’t telling us who “they” are. So, once again, its up to We The People to dig through the trash and find out who the Hell is rubber-stamping these pay scales.

If some one doesn’t go to jail for the likes of this, then the peaceful demonstrations of  the “OWS” crowd will seem very mild to what happens next. I, for one, hope to be around to witness that next chapter.

P.S.:  Since when was anything called “toxic” considered an ‘asset’?

          ‘They’ really do think we’re all idiots! 

The Immigration Rag

This is a Nation born of immigrants and routinely sustained by a regular flow of immigrants. There have been, over the years, attempts to regulate this flow for a myriad of reasons. The advent of the post-9/11 era has given more weight to knee jerk reactions to this question than we have normally seen throughout or history. Predictably so, as 9/11 signifies the first modern day attack on American soil.

What follows is not a point of view, rather a summary look at this history. In some way, we need to come to terms with the societal changes occurring all over the globe; not just the changes inside our own borders. Bob Dylan knew this a long time time ago, in a far off land; “….for the times they are a changing…’”.

***********************************************

(to wit:)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The History of Immigration in the United States

Naturalization is the process of gaining United States citizenship. Becoming an American citizen is the ultimate goal for many immigrants, but very few people are aware that the requirements for naturalization have been over 200 years in the making.

Legislative History of Naturalization

Before applying for naturalization, most immigrants must have spent 5 years as a permanent resident in the United States. How did we come up with the "5-year rule"? The answer is found in the legislative history of immigration to the U.S. Naturalization requirements are set out in the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), the basic body of immigration law. Before the INA was created in 1952, a variety of statutes governed immigration law. Let's take a look at the major changes to naturalization requirements.

·         Before the Act of March 26, 1790, naturalization was under the control of the individual states. This first federal activity established a uniform rule for naturalization by setting the residence requirement at 2 years.

·         The Act of January 29, 1795 repealed the 1790 act, and raised the residence requirement to 5 years. It also required, for the first time, a declaration of intention to seek citizenship at least 3 years before naturalization.

·         Along came the Naturalization Act of June 18, 1798 - a time when political tensions were running high and there was an increased desire to guard the nation. The residence requirement for naturalization was raised from 5 years to 14 years.

·         Four years later, Congress passed the Naturalization Act of April 14, 1802, which reduced the residence period for naturalization from 14 years back to 5 years.

·         The Act of May 26, 1824 made it easier for the naturalization of certain aliens who had entered the U.S. as minors, by setting a 2-year instead of a 3-year interval between declaration of intention and admission to citizenship.

·         The Act of May 11, 1922 was an extension of a 1921 Act, and included an amendment that changed the residency requirement in a Western Hemisphere country from 1 year to the current requirement of 5 years.

·         Noncitizens who had served honorably in the U.S. armed forces during the Vietnam conflict or in other periods of military hostilities, were recognized in the Act of October 24, 1968. This act amended the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, providing an expedited naturalization process for these military members.

·         The 2-year continuous U.S. residence requirement was done away with in the Act of October 5, 1978.

·         A major overhaul of immigration law occurred with the Immigration Act of November 29, 1990. In it, state residency requirements were reduced to the current requirement of 3 months.

Naturalization Requirements Today

Today's general naturalization requirements state that you must have 5 years as a lawful permanent resident in the U.S. prior to filing, with no single absence from the U.S. of more than 1 year. In addition, you must have been physically present in the U.S. for at least 30 months out of the previous 5 years and resided within a state or district for at least 3 months.

It is important to note that there are exceptions to the 5-year rule for certain people. These include: spouses of U.S. citizens; employees of the U.S. Government (including the U.S. Armed Forces); American research institutes recognized by the Attorney General; recognized U.S. religious organizations; U.S. research institutions; an American firm engaged in the development of foreign trade and commerce of the U.S.; and certain public international organizations involving the U.S.

Source:   immigration.about.com/.../usimmigrationhistory/The_History_of_ ...Cached - Similar

***********************************************

History

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

American immigration history can be viewed in four epochs: the colonial period, the mid-nineteenth century, the turn of the twentieth, and post-1965. Each period brought distinct national groups, races, and ethnicities to the United States. During the seventeenth century, approximately 175,000 Englishmen migrated to Colonial America. Over half of all European immigrants to Colonial America during the 17th and 18th centuries arrived as indentured servants. The mid-nineteenth century saw mainly an influx from northern Europe; the early twentieth-century mainly from Southern and Eastern Europe; post-1965 mostly from Latin America and Asia.

Historians estimate that less than one million immigrants—perhaps as few as 400,000—crossed the Atlantic during the 17th and 18th centuries. The 1790 Act limited naturalization to "free white persons"; it was expanded to include blacks in the 1860s and Asians in the 1950s. In the early years of the United States, immigration was fewer than 8,000 people a year, including French refugees from the slave revolt in Haiti. After 1820, immigration gradually increased. From 1836 to 1914, over 30 million Europeans migrated to the United States. The death rate on these transatlantic voyages was high, during which one in seven travelers died.  In 1875, the nation passed its first immigration law.

The peak year of European immigration was in 1907, when 1,285,349 persons entered the country. By 1910, 13.5 million immigrants were living in the United States. In 1921, the Congress passed the Emergency Quota Act, followed by the Immigration Act of 1924. The 1924 Act was aimed at further restricting the Southern and Eastern Europeans, especially Jews, Italians, and Slavs, who had begun to enter the country in large numbers beginning in the 1890s. Most of the European refugees fleeing the Nazis and World War II were barred from coming to the United States.

The welfare system was practically non-existent before the 1930s and the economic pressures on the poor were giving rise to child labor.

Immigration patterns of the 1930s were dominated by the Great Depression, which hit the U.S. hard and lasted over ten years there. In the final prosperous year, 1929, there were 279,678 immigrants recorded, but in 1933, only 23,068 came to the U.S. In the early 1930s, more people emigrated from the United States than immigrated to it. The U.S. government sponsored a Mexican Repatriation program which was intended to encourage people to voluntarily move to Mexico, but thousands were deported against their will. Altogether about 400,000 Mexicans were repatriated. In the post-war era, the Justice Department launched Operation Wetback, under which 1,075,168 Mexicans were deported in 1954.

The Immigration and Nationality Act of 1965, also known as the Hart-Cellar Act, abolished the system of national-origin quotas. By equalizing immigration policies, the act resulted in new immigration from non-European nations, which changed the ethnic make-up of the United States. While European immigrants accounted for nearly 60% of the total foreign population in 1970, they accounted for only 15% in 2000. Immigration doubled between 1965 and 1970, and again between 1970 and 1990. In 1990, George H. W. Bush signed the Immigration Act of 1990, which increased legal immigration to the United States by 40%. Appointed by Bill Clinton, the U.S. Commission on Immigration Reform recommended reducing legal immigration from about 800,000 people per year to approximately 550,000. While an influx of new residents from different cultures presents some challenges, "the United States has always been energized by its immigrant populations," said President Bill Clinton in 1998. "America has constantly drawn strength and spirit from wave after wave of immigrants. They have proved to be the most restless, the most adventurous, the most innovative, the most industrious of people."

Nearly eight million immigrants came to the United States from 2000 to 2005, more than in any other five-year period in the nation's history. Almost half entered illegally. Since 1986, Congress has passed seven amnesties for illegal immigrants. In 1986, Ronald Reagan signed immigration reform that gave amnesty to 3 million illegal immigrants in the country. Hispanic immigrants were among the first victims of the late-2000s recession, but since the recession's end in June 2009, immigrants posted a net gain of 656,000 jobs. 1.1 million immigrants were granted legal residence in 2009.

Persons Obtaining Legal Permanent Resident Status Fiscal Years

Year		Year		Year
1950	249,187	1987	601,516	2008	1,107,126
1967	361,972	1997	797,847	2009	1,130,818
1977	462,315	2007	1,052,415	2010	1,042,625

Source: US Department of Homeland Security, Persons Obtaining Legal Permanent Resident Status: Fiscal Years 1820 to 2010

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_the_United_States#History

***********************************************From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Immigration to the United States has been a major source of population growth and cultural change throughout much of the history of the United States. The economic, social, and political aspects of immigration have caused controversy regarding ethnicity, economic benefits, jobs for non-immigrants, settlement patterns, impact on upward social mobility, crime, and voting behavior. As of 2006, the United States accepts more legal immigrants as permanent residents than all other countries in the world combined. Since the removal of ethnic quotas in immigration in 1965, the number of first- generation immigrants living in the United States has quadrupled, from 9.6 million in 1970 to about 38 million in 2007. 1,046,539 persons were naturalized as U.S. citizens in 2008. The leading emigrating countries to the United States were Mexico, India, the Philippines, and China.

The cheap airline travel post-1960 facilitated travel to the United States, but migration remains difficult, expensive, and dangerous for those who cross the United States–Mexico border illegally. Family reunification accounts for approximately two-thirds of legal immigration to the US every year. The number of foreign nationals who became legal permanent residents (LPRs) of the U.S. in 2009 as a result of family reunification (66%) outpaced those who became LPRs on the basis of employment skills (13%) and humanitarian reasons (17%).

Recent debates on immigration have called for increasing enforcement of existing laws with regard to illegal immigration to the United States, building a barrier along some or all of the 2,000-mile (3,200 km) U.S.-Mexico border, or creating a new guest worker program. Through much of 2006, the country and Congress was immersed in a debate about these proposals. As of April 2010, few of these proposals had become law, though a partial border fence was approved and subsequently canceled.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immigration_to_the_United_States#cite_note-cnn-40

***********************************************

“and, the beat goes on......” ( Sonny & Cher)